I’m not very happy about this as it has relatively big impacts on my field (cosmology/astronomy). The goal of worldwide internet is a noble one, but I can’t help but feel Starlink is ultimately...
I’m not very happy about this as it has relatively big impacts on my field (cosmology/astronomy). The goal of worldwide internet is a noble one, but I can’t help but feel Starlink is ultimately inhibiting science and progress in the name of profit.
Not only in the name of profit, they're (possibly intentionally?) inhibiting and swamping the regulatory body that manages these issues with enormous amounts of paperwork, effectively forcing...
Not only in the name of profit, they're (possibly intentionally?) inhibiting and swamping the regulatory body that manages these issues with enormous amounts of paperwork, effectively forcing their submission through by sheer force—the ITU was not designed to handle the paperwork for a 30,000+ satellite constellation.
Global internet is an important goal, but nothing ever should be done without nuance and care. The fact of the matter is that there's no regulatory framework that exists for the preservation of dark skies, nor is there any modern legislation around ownership or rights of stakeholders (i.e. every other human) about the collective that is the night sky in general.
Relying on a for-profit megacorporation to police itself in this regard is a stupid, foolish decision. But Musk fans don't generally care about these sorts of things because it's "cool".
The New York Times published an article more specifically about that aspect today, any thoughts on it? As SpaceX Launches 60 Starlink Satellites, Scientists See Threat to ‘Astronomy Itself’
The article is largely accurate. My main concern is for these large scale survey telescopes, like LSST which is mentioned in the article. The sheer quantity of these planned constellations (and...
The article is largely accurate. My main concern is for these large scale survey telescopes, like LSST which is mentioned in the article. The sheer quantity of these planned constellations (and surely, if Starlink is successful, it is only the beginning) is unlike other challenges faced by these surveys. Large numbers of images will be spoiled by reflection artifacts alone with other issues arising. Check out LSST's statement and a statement from the IAU for more info.
The most frustrating thing about this, for me, is that there are simple solutions that could at least mitigate the issue that Musk & Starlink have completely ignored, despite publicly claiming to be willing to work with the astronomical community. Proposals like simply painting the satellites a less reflective color (like black) would solve or at least lessen some of the issues, but there's been no movement on this front. It's not a huge surprise in my opinion, as Musk's only goal in the long run is profits, but it is a bit rich considering his public perception as a big supporter of "science".
What is the alternative? I think having global satellite internet service is non-negotiable. To this day, 3 billion people—almost half the planet—have no internet access at all. Global internet...
What is the alternative?
I think having global satellite internet service is non-negotiable. To this day, 3 billion people—almost half the planet—have no internet access at all. Global internet access will be at least as big as the introduction of broadband.
Additionally, to prevent the next Comcast, I think we need a bare minimum of two competing satellite internet networks.
So, yeah ... that's a lotta sats.
OTOH ... I think it's a matter of degree. We have 5,000 satellites up there now, and Astronomy hasn't imploded. 1,000 more might be fine, 10,000 more might be. The NYT article Deimos linked mentions an analysis for a telescope that thinks it can handle 12,000 sats, but its avoidance algorithm collapses under the weight of 42,000.
I guess the risks to visible light astronomy need to be better integrated into the planning. If we decide that, eg, 9,000 new satellites are the limit, and that we will authorize 3 companies, then I'm confident that SpaceX can innovate their way to a successful service with <3,000 sats.
The alternative is working with both regulatory agencies and the astronomical community to mitigate the issues that these constellations bring into the fold. So far Musk has been completely...
The alternative is working with both regulatory agencies and the astronomical community to mitigate the issues that these constellations bring into the fold. So far Musk has been completely unwilling to do either, and I have seen nothing to convince me he is interested in changing his approach going forward. Competitors are sure to follow.
Earth-based astronomy hasn't imploded yet because scientists have put tons of effort (I wonder how many dissertations have been on this alone) into identify and compensating for transients in survey telescopes. Even then, its imperfect and some percentage of images taken each night have to get thrown out. To increase that number by a factor of 6-10 in the course of a few years is a nightmare for astronomy in my opinion that is hard to convey because, as the NYT article points out, to the naked eye almost nothing has changed. It's not just visible astronomy mind you - even though attempts are made to minimize radio noise from these constellations, the sheer numbers involved will make radio-based astronomy collaborations (like the Event Horizon Telescope, for example) much more difficult.
These large survey telescopes are huge public investments into pure science - truly investments that have little immediate hope of turning some type of profit - that are being kneecapped in a race for more money. Global internet is certainly an important goal. I just don't trust one or two companies to get us there, and certainly not ones that have already show flagrant disregard for communities and agencies that they should ostensibly be working with.
Expecting SpaceX, Amazon, etc to voluntarily go out of their way is the wrong approach. SpaceX is a bit of a special case, since Musk seems to be more altruistic than your average CEO ... but even...
Expecting SpaceX, Amazon, etc to voluntarily go out of their way is the wrong approach. SpaceX is a bit of a special case, since Musk seems to be more altruistic than your average CEO ... but even there, anything that gets in the way of his Mars plans tends to get steamrolled.
The more effective approach seems to be to push the regulatory agencies—directly and/or thru political representatives—to make the impact on astronomy a primary consideration for approval. My understanding is that, currently in the FCC, this doesn't even enter into the approval process, beyond a perfunctory public comment phase. Perhaps something like an Env Prot Act for astronomy.
Of course, the larger problem is that the FCC is US-based, while LEO is global...
Super excited to see the fourth flight of a Falcon 9 booster and the first reuse of a pair of fairings on this mission. I'll be super interested to see if they manage to pull off the Starlink...
Super excited to see the fourth flight of a Falcon 9 booster and the first reuse of a pair of fairings on this mission. I'll be super interested to see if they manage to pull off the Starlink launch cadence that they're hoping for next year.
I’m not very happy about this as it has relatively big impacts on my field (cosmology/astronomy). The goal of worldwide internet is a noble one, but I can’t help but feel Starlink is ultimately inhibiting science and progress in the name of profit.
Not only in the name of profit, they're (possibly intentionally?) inhibiting and swamping the regulatory body that manages these issues with enormous amounts of paperwork, effectively forcing their submission through by sheer force—the ITU was not designed to handle the paperwork for a 30,000+ satellite constellation.
Global internet is an important goal, but nothing ever should be done without nuance and care. The fact of the matter is that there's no regulatory framework that exists for the preservation of dark skies, nor is there any modern legislation around ownership or rights of stakeholders (i.e. every other human) about the collective that is the night sky in general.
Relying on a for-profit megacorporation to police itself in this regard is a stupid, foolish decision. But Musk fans don't generally care about these sorts of things because it's "cool".
This is a silly way to handle a regulatory body being swamped... Default to no, not yes.
The New York Times published an article more specifically about that aspect today, any thoughts on it? As SpaceX Launches 60 Starlink Satellites, Scientists See Threat to ‘Astronomy Itself’
The article is largely accurate. My main concern is for these large scale survey telescopes, like LSST which is mentioned in the article. The sheer quantity of these planned constellations (and surely, if Starlink is successful, it is only the beginning) is unlike other challenges faced by these surveys. Large numbers of images will be spoiled by reflection artifacts alone with other issues arising. Check out LSST's statement and a statement from the IAU for more info.
The most frustrating thing about this, for me, is that there are simple solutions that could at least mitigate the issue that Musk & Starlink have completely ignored, despite publicly claiming to be willing to work with the astronomical community. Proposals like simply painting the satellites a less reflective color (like black) would solve or at least lessen some of the issues, but there's been no movement on this front. It's not a huge surprise in my opinion, as Musk's only goal in the long run is profits, but it is a bit rich considering his public perception as a big supporter of "science".
What is the alternative?
I think having global satellite internet service is non-negotiable. To this day, 3 billion people—almost half the planet—have no internet access at all. Global internet access will be at least as big as the introduction of broadband.
Additionally, to prevent the next Comcast, I think we need a bare minimum of two competing satellite internet networks.
So, yeah ... that's a lotta sats.
OTOH ... I think it's a matter of degree. We have 5,000 satellites up there now, and Astronomy hasn't imploded. 1,000 more might be fine, 10,000 more might be. The NYT article Deimos linked mentions an analysis for a telescope that thinks it can handle 12,000 sats, but its avoidance algorithm collapses under the weight of 42,000.
I guess the risks to visible light astronomy need to be better integrated into the planning. If we decide that, eg, 9,000 new satellites are the limit, and that we will authorize 3 companies, then I'm confident that SpaceX can innovate their way to a successful service with <3,000 sats.
The alternative is working with both regulatory agencies and the astronomical community to mitigate the issues that these constellations bring into the fold. So far Musk has been completely unwilling to do either, and I have seen nothing to convince me he is interested in changing his approach going forward. Competitors are sure to follow.
Earth-based astronomy hasn't imploded yet because scientists have put tons of effort (I wonder how many dissertations have been on this alone) into identify and compensating for transients in survey telescopes. Even then, its imperfect and some percentage of images taken each night have to get thrown out. To increase that number by a factor of 6-10 in the course of a few years is a nightmare for astronomy in my opinion that is hard to convey because, as the NYT article points out, to the naked eye almost nothing has changed. It's not just visible astronomy mind you - even though attempts are made to minimize radio noise from these constellations, the sheer numbers involved will make radio-based astronomy collaborations (like the Event Horizon Telescope, for example) much more difficult.
These large survey telescopes are huge public investments into pure science - truly investments that have little immediate hope of turning some type of profit - that are being kneecapped in a race for more money. Global internet is certainly an important goal. I just don't trust one or two companies to get us there, and certainly not ones that have already show flagrant disregard for communities and agencies that they should ostensibly be working with.
Expecting SpaceX, Amazon, etc to voluntarily go out of their way is the wrong approach. SpaceX is a bit of a special case, since Musk seems to be more altruistic than your average CEO ... but even there, anything that gets in the way of his Mars plans tends to get steamrolled.
The more effective approach seems to be to push the regulatory agencies—directly and/or thru political representatives—to make the impact on astronomy a primary consideration for approval. My understanding is that, currently in the FCC, this doesn't even enter into the approval process, beyond a perfunctory public comment phase. Perhaps something like an Env Prot Act for astronomy.
Of course, the larger problem is that the FCC is US-based, while LEO is global...
Super excited to see the fourth flight of a Falcon 9 booster and the first reuse of a pair of fairings on this mission. I'll be super interested to see if they manage to pull off the Starlink launch cadence that they're hoping for next year.